= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on Only You Can Prevent Your Mind From Getting Killed By Politics - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (143)
Eliezer's response there always struck me as odd. Was he making a simple factual observation? When you read the comment in question, it reads to me as the summary of an argument that regulation is necessary. Eliezer doesn't endorse that argument- he doesn't think that regulation should be necessary- but he's making the claim "society will require regulation because of argument X." Unsurprisingly, people respond to X as an argument for regulation, but a cursory glance doesn't show me any comments where people attribute to Eliezer endorsement of that argument.
That isn't how it read to me. He says, "Some poor, honest, well-intentioned, stupid mother of 5 kids will shop at a banned store and buy a Snake's Sulfuric Acid Drink for her arthritis and die, leaving her orphaned children to cry on national television. Afterward the banned stores will be immediately closed down, based on that single case, regardless of their net benefit."
That sounds to me like he's saying this will happen regardless, and it still might be a net plus but it's something proponents will have to address.
The bolded section means that Eliezer doesn't endorse the argument, not that it is not an argument.
Why would the proponents have to address it, unless it was an argument against their position? Otherwise it would be a non sequitor.
[Edit] To be clear, I agree that policy debates should not be one-sided. But the way I interpret that is that there are both positive and negative consequences for any policy, and the positive consequences are arguments for and the negative consequences are arguments against.
Okay, seems like it was mostly a semantics disagreement then.
Though I am a bit caught up on your saying Eliezer doesn't endorse the argument. Using your terminology, I think he does endorse the argument, meaning he thinks that's a legitimate point against having "banned stores." But, he also endorses other arguments for them, and to him, those weigh more.
I believe Eliezer endorses the decision principle "choose the option with largest net benefit," but predicts that democratic societies will operate under the decision principle "choose the option which can be best defended publicly."
That is, his comment as a whole makes three related points: first, a consequence of having stores where banned products are sold is that unintelligent customers will kill or seriously injure themselves with the products sold therein, second, this consequence is sad, and third, democratic societies are unwilling to allow consequences that are visibly that sad. For me to say he endorses the argument, I would require that he say or imply "and those societies are right," when I think he heavily implies that he understands but disagrees with their argument.